Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Schools and Churches
Message-ID: <191@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 20:29:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.191
Posted: Tue Sep 17 20:29:28 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 03:54:32 EDT
References: <623@hou2g.UUCP> <5884@cbscc.UUCP> <1154@mhuxt.UUCP> <5906@cbscc.UUCP>
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 80
Xref: watmath net.politics:11045 net.religion:7680

Frankly, I'm rather glad I'm going to Hell.  I'd rather suffer the
discomforts and have the company of those who believe in the free
inquiry of science, than enjoy the air-conditioned comfort of Heaven
and be surrounded by Fundamentalists who regard thinking for oneself
as a sin and to whom the highest virtue is obedience to Authority.

Paul Dubuc writes:

>>But why should one view be compulsory and tax supported and the conflicting
>>one not?  Many churches teach nothing with regard to origins.  Students
>>who don't go to churches that teach creationism or no church at all will
>>only learn one side of the issue. 

So what?  If they have attended a good school, they will have a good
idea of what science is and will be able to distinguish religious
beliefs from science.  Why is it important that children learn the
creationist "side" and not the Hindu, Velikovskian, geocentric, and
flat-earth sides as well, not to mention numerous others?

>There was a fair amount ideological witch hunting going on in "the
>Velikovsky Affair" (see the book by that title).  I would suggest
>that kind of face saving and "mine is better" thinking has much more
>to do with what scientific ideas are popular then we tend to think.
>... My only
>point here is that just because a particular idea or ideas are
>accepted by the majority of scientists doesn't mean that contrary
>ideas don't have merit or aren't true.  

So what?  Point #1:  Creation-science ideas are NOT A MINORITY
SCIENTIFIC VIEW.  They are not even bad science.  They are not
science at all.  This has been explained at great length in
net.origins.

Point #2:  Even if 100% of the "merit" and most of the truth were on
the side of creationism, THAT STILL WOULD NOT MAKE IT SCIENCE.  It
would still be a religious belief, for the reasons that have been
expounded at great length in net.origins.  Under the First Amendment
as usually interpreted, religious instruction is barred from the
public schools.

>...  Also, it does not follow that all idea's rejected by
>this majority are equally lacking in merit.  You seem to imply that
>they are by placing creationism in the same category with the flat
>earth theory.

No, he implied that they were equally lacking in scientific
character.  Creation-"science" may have oodles more "merit" than
flat-earth "science," but one is no more scientific than the other.  

>I'm talking
>about the basis we have for saying that some practices are a crime and
>enforce that belief through our laws....
>I assume you are in favor of laws that compel people to obey some of
>your moral standards, Jeff.  I assume you are against things like
>rape, murder and theft and think it is good that others are compelled
>to obey this standard by our laws.  I also assume that you believe
>that laws like this are not a matter of individual preference and
>that, on the other hand, the rightness of a law does not depend only
>on whether the majority of people think it's right.  So, then, what
>is the justification for these laws apart from religion?

Why does a law need a "justification"?  People advocate laws and
enforcement thereof for a variety of reasons, but in large part it's
because of the practical effect they think the law will have.  I
support certain social welfare laws because I don't want people to be
poor or hungry.  It has zilch to do with religion, and I feel no need
to "justify" my desire to have fewer people going hungry or poor.  If
someone else opposes the laws because he doesn't care about poor and
hungry people, fine with me, I have nothing to say to him.  

As to why anyone should behave morally, one should do so ONLY IF ONE
WANTS TO.  There is no other good reason for doing anything.  And one
wants to, in the case of the people who do, because AS A CHILD ONE'S
NEEDS WERE FULFILLED BY LOVING PARENTS.  No one has the capacity for
loving and caring unless he or she has first received loving and
caring.  Again it has zilch to do with a religious education or
indoctrination.

Richard Carnes
Damned and proud of it


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com